David Vega

Soldano, yes it is true. It only takes one FS9 format AI file, and FSX will not show any FSX format traffic. I use AI Flight Planner to convert all FS9 file format traffic files to FSX format.

Very impressive. Thanks for the post.

For those of you that want crowded skies, how do you cope with ATC?

Thank you for the good news.

Bill, Look for F1View Utility here. It's free and it works.

I'm disappointed ImagineSim isn't offering an upgrade price to their customers who purchased this scenery for FSX. It is unfortunate to some, including me, that some decide to purchase it without an upgrade price, but freedom is a beautiful thing.

Thank you for the photos. I'm disappointed ImagineSim isn't offering an upgrade price to their customers who purchased this scenery for FSX. It is unfortunate to some, including me, that some decide to purchase it without an upgrade price, but freedom is a beautiful thing.

A friend of mine that works on the consuming end of Microsoft told me not to believe friends that work on other ends of Microsoft. :wink:

If price doesn't matter, get both. They are two different birds.

A3 610, You can create, save, and load an FSX configuration that is appropriate for what you're trying to achieve. For example, for higher AI, reduce any other form of traffic (auto, boats, etc.) and possibly scenery density, and/or clouds, and save that configuration. If you're low flying near or over water and want to see more boat traffic, configure your FSX for more boat traffic, etc., and save it. Hope you get the picture.

Thanks for the link.

Thank you René.

No issues with W7-64 and FSX Gold.

An end of an era indeed. I still have my copy of MS FS1, released way back in 1982. I also had an earlier version for the C64, by subLOGIC. It's hard to think that after 30 years Microsoft is no longer involved in the PC flight sim business. Regardless of all the complaints, thank you Microsoft for 30 years of pretend flying. Hope you reconsider, I'll miss the good and the bad. David Vega

I get the crashes also. Could it be because MS says that FSX Deluxe isn't compatible with Win7-64?

Check out this MS' FSX and Win7 compatibility chart. I too have deluxe running on Win7. No problems installing it, but sometimes I wonder if there's something to the compatibility. For example, I see a large pole on FSDreamteam LSZH scenery. Look at the last post of this thread.

Welcome to FSX. Suggest browsing this and other forums for the information you seek. I'm sure you will find good recommendations based on the type of flying you prefer.

An interesting dilemma. "I think that there's not a whole lot more to develop in flight simulation." While I can think of a couple of things: ATC, weather, it's very likely that even if someone could miraculously offer an ATC add-on, this crew wouldn't accept it unless it works with FS9. It sounds like unless a new flight simulator is created, or MS sells a new version of MS FS that runs as fast as FS9 on existing PCs and uses all FS9 add-ons, there's no future for flight simulators. I enjoy FS9 and have since day 1. The same for FSX, and for all the other versions going back to the C64 days. Each version challenged the hardware of the day. Each version had improvements over its predecessors. I think what has kept the PC flight simulator progressing is buying and adapting. This doesn't mean that I always had to stop using an older version as soon as a new one came out, but by buying and adapting I believe I am one of the many that has kept the hobby alive. The add-on makers create their stuff to sell. In my opinion, buying and adapting keeps them creating. Respectfully,

Thank you. Glad you decided to publish this scenery for FSX.

The FS9 AI needs to be converted to FSX AI. Conversion is easy with AI Flight Planner.

Suggest removing UT2 to determine if that is the problem. As others have said, it's unlikely that an AI add-on would change default ATC behavior.

I'm still partial to the first VA, SunAir Express. They have been round since 1991 with a very good crew. They don't have that many pilots, so if you prefer a large VA, consider this Delta VA. Regards,

Has anyone assembled a list of what is wrong with this product? So far I have seen general comments, which I appreciate, but would like to see a list outlining what doesn't work as advertised, what is poor (subjective), etc. I have seen: Post latest patch: Difficult click spots, but better after the last patch Problems with autopilot Annunciator not working Some of the lights do not work (which ones?) After Original Release Attitude indicator is not properly aligned when the engines are off, "EADI like a vacuum gyro instrument" Limited simulation of systems. The systems that are simulated have functionality issues. For example makes you select continuous ignition to start the engines, hydraulics show system pressure no matter if pumps are running or not. Bleed valves only offer right or left and not both. The nav source knob does not work. Click spots for the autopilot are too small and are slow to change. Some systems like anti skid show a click spot but don't do anything and the default position is off. AFCS panel is close to impossible to read. FMC does not allow to select transitions on the Sid/stars. The fuel cutoff switches are stolen from the 737. The fadec system is not simulated. It doesn't have an INS system Regarding the flight model: For the wilcopub's version of the CRJ, try the following: trim for straight and level flight. Pull the thrust levers to idle and watch as the airplane just keeps pitching up quite rapidly till about 70 degrees pitch up before it stalls. While the airplane is in a stall, pull the yoke all the way back and watch as the airplane just piches up to nearly 90 degrees. then let go of the yoke, and the nose of the airplane falls down rapidly to about 70-80 degrees pitch down. The airplane handles like something between a default c-172 and a flighter jet if you keep pushing it. I know FSX has its limitations, but this plane flies worse than all the default airplanes. There is a gap in the FO foot well From eefields: "The first problem I found is in the modeling of the 2D cockpit. There are no gauges visible and the quick buttons to get to things, not all of them work. In fact, the icon that is supposed to take you to the FMS actually takes you to the default FSX GPS. Some of the quick icons don't activate any windows. So, you have a 2D where you can't even see the speed of your aircraft. So, I thought, i will pop into the 3D cockpit. Well, most of the switches don't work there. "Worse yet, there are no customizations possible to the plane. Even worse, there is not even a load manager. Documentation consists of a checklist ( a poor one) and the typical Wilco manual with mispellings and huge holes of missing information. "In the FMS, the SID/Star transitions do not work and the system does not populate RNAV or ILS approaches. In addition, sometimes when you open the FMS, you can't see it as it does not render properly. "As for handling, well, do I really need to say much? I thought I would do a basic ILS appch at DFW and the aircraft blew past the localizer (I was on a heading of 040 for a runway heading of 355). It then blew past the localizer trying to recover. "

I use both. Yes, no moving jetways with GSX. For added realism, GSX forces you to know about the gate. With AES, one just pulls up to any gate and either a marshaler or automation guides you in. In GSX, one must first select the appropriate gate (size) for your aircraft. The GSX menu helps there, and it also points out which gates are busy with other aircraft and for how long. Best part about these products is that we now have competition. I understand that GSX may have moving jetways in the future. Hope AES continues to improve. Best thing AES could do is change its credits-based approach.

Eric, Very good. I'm not very familiar with the city although I have visited it. Your buildings do enhance the scenery very well. Please consider using a satellite photo for the ground. Perhaps this would even help you with new building positioning. Please also consider modeling some of the buildings from that small technical school across the Charles River, in Cambridge. Regards,